May 7, 2014

Climate Change Naysayers Won’t Face Facts

The release of a scientific report on climate change yesterday has brought out the naysayers, who are working hard to keep people from being educated. Bill Nye, who debated Kenneth Ham about a variety of issues including climate change, went on CNN Crossfire to talk about the existence of global warming. Ham may be remembered as the founder of a state-supported museum in Kentucky that purports people and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Although the debate was supposed to be with conservative Nicholas Loris, host S.E. Cupp joined Loris in bashing global warming. She accused Nye, co-host Van Jones, and President Obama’s administration of using “scare tactics” against the public regarding climate change. Both Loris and Cupp used the tired argument that only 97 percent of scientists agree that human driven global climate change is real.

Bill Nye is a scientist; Cupp and Loris aren’t. Loris works for the Heritage Foundation, leader of the climate change denying that is funded by the Koch brothers. Among the wealthiest people in the world, the Kochs oppose any belief in human-caused climate changed to keep adding to their vast wealth. Their money comes from polluting industries that plunder the earth’s resources. Heritage Foundation would lose substantial donations if they didn’t present Nye as an alarmist with the goal of destroying Big Business.

Loris tried to take the middle ground by saying:

“I’m not a denier, I’m not a skeptic. What I’m saying is, climate is changing—yes, man-made emission are in some part to that—but we haven’t seen these extreme weather event trends. The observed data doesn’t prove that.”

He ignores the extreme high temperatures, droughts, floods, and super storms across the United States within the past few years. The following map shows a frightening increase in temperature.

Paying attention to the facts of climate change, however, detracts from his bottom line that he thinks regulations would hurt the nation’s economy. He may have missed the following paragraph from the NCA report:

“Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York and native peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska.”

Other changes identified in the NCA for just the Northeast:

Sea levels are eight inches higher on average–in the Northeast, a foot higher—changing the frequency of coastal flooding. This compromises the aging infrastructure along the Northeast coast such as I-95, railroads, electrical substations, and wastewater treatment plants.

Downpours from intense storms have a 70-percent increase since the middle of the last century.

About 40 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before the Industrial Revolution warms the planet, changing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and causing the expanding oceans to rise.

In response, New York City is considering such possibilities as elevating the critical infrastructure, raising homes, expanding wetland areas, planting more trees, and putting in cooling centers for times of heat waves. Maine is expanding the size of drainage pipes to accommodate heavier rainstorms.

At one point, Cupp argues that only 36 percent of people in the United States think that climate change demonstrates a negative impact. Nye answered:

“How do you want to get public consensus? By saying that it is not happening? That is not serious? That shorelines aren’t flooding?”

He asked Cupp and Loris what would change their minds about the threat posed by climate change. Loris answered better science—which can be found in the NCA. Nye pointed out that he and Cupp didn’t agree on the facts, but she interrupted him to blame the “science guys [who] attempt to bully other people. Nick here had to say, ‘I’m not a denier.’ He had to get it out: ‘I’m not a denier.’ Because really, the science group has tried to shame anyone who dares question this, and the point I’m trying to make is, it’s not working with the public.”

By “public,” Cupp means Republicans. Last fall, only 50 percent, probably because of the misinformation from CNN and Fox, said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth. At least that’s down from 59 percent in 2006. Jon Huntsman, GOP presidential candidate in 2012, wrote for The New York Times:

“If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress. Republicans need to get back to our foundational roots as catalysts for innovation and problem solving.”

The public may start worry when they run out of water. The following maps don’t even consider the loss of water to the ever present fracking.

The public response to climate change most likely comes from the ignorance that is spewed on conservative networks. George Will said on Fox network that is no evidence for the increase in extreme weather.

Always looking for a conspiracy, Fox network suggested that the climate report, a legally-mandated document, might be intended “to distract Americans” from the “multiple scandals swirling around the administration.” Another co-host of the program repeated Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) claim that the climate change report is “part of the game the president is playing” to distract Americans from “his unchecked regulatory agenda.” Fox always attributes any news other than the conservative-manufactured scandals to a cover-up. Other presidential “distractions,” according to Fox, are efforts to reduce income inequality, reform filibuster, and change immigration policies.

Like human rights, climate change comes down to a vote. Limiting human rights may not be constitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that a vote of the people in Michigan is good enough to eliminate affirmative action. If enough people don’t agree that something should be done about climate change, then the United States should just let the planet disintegrate, according to conservatives.

One small victory for slowing down climate change came from a recent Supreme Court decision. Much to the amazement of most people in the nation, six justices supported an EPA policy to regulate power-plant pollution cross state lines. According to SCOTUS, states such as Connecticut and New York can be protected from Rust Belt and Appalachian states blowing soot, smog, and other toxins in the west-to-east winds. Justice Antonin Scalia said the regulation was Marxist, but he was one of only two voting against the decision, the other—of course—being Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself.